Any Defenses of Materialism?

[Nous]

What is the basis for your choices ? How do you answer this question without resorting to causality ?

I didn't say or imply that any effect was uncaused. I noted that the ability of individuals to choose between available options is not accounted for by any law of physics.

This is, however, another debate entirely. It suffices to say that if compatibilism can be true, then you can't use free will as evidence against Physicalism.

Obviously no one needs to present any "evidence against physicalism" since no one is able to argue for that thesis. No one could do a better job than you have of presenting evidence that the thesis of physicalism is vacuous and logically indefensible.

 

[Nous]

I am afraid I can't explain the meaning of 'physical' any better than I have done so far.

Obviously you can't define the adjective in a non-vacuous way, and obviously you can't articulate any argument by which to conclude that the thesis of physicalism is true. That's why I ask why anyone needs that vacuous religion. Why don't try addressing that question, since you have been so spectacularly unsuccessful at defending physicalism?

 

[Koldo]

I didn't say or imply that any effect was uncaused. I noted that the ability of individuals to choose between available options is not accounted for by any law of physics.

As I have said, it depends on what you mean by that.
In Physicalism, free will arises as a consequence of those laws.

Obviously no one needs to present any "evidence against physicalism" since no one is able to argue for that thesis. No one could do a better job than you have of presenting evidence that the thesis of physicalism is vacuous and logically indefensible.

Obviously you can't define the adjective in a non-vacuous way, and obviously you can't articulate any argument by which to conclude that the thesis of physicalism is true. That's why I ask why anyone needs that vacuous religion. Why don't try addressing that question, since you have been so spectacularly unsuccessful at defending physicalism?

Once again, as I have said, I find myself unable to explain 'physical' any better than I have done so far.
It is not that I can't argument in favour of Physicalism, the issue is that if you don't even understand what is meant by 'physical' it would be pointless. The term would indeed be lacking of any meaning to you. At this point though, you either understand it or you don't. And since you don't, there isn't much more I can talk about it. I hope I have, at least, managed to dispel some misconceptions you had.

 

[idav]

I am looking for any defenses of materialism, especially material reductionism in the mind-body problem. I am not here to put forth or support claims, I am asking those who accept materialism to present the reasoning and evidence for doing so. I have yet to seen anything outside of burden of proof games when presenting my own opinion, with not a single materialist I have talked to online or in life being willing to present their evidence or reasoning. Also, I am looking for that which suggests only materialism, as a whole position. It is already understood that there is a correlation between the brain and body, but causation has yet to be shown. I am also looking for reasoning that does not start with the assumption of material reductionism and then fill in the blanks. Of great interest and importance would be physical evidence of the mind and its contents, the mechanism by which the brain creates the mind, how a brain secretes chemicals but a mind feels and thinks, or how we can directly know the mind and the physical world only through that mind.

Thanks in advanced!

One of the best explanations on evolution and the mind body problem comes from a physicist in which he uses models to show how awareness can be explained with materialistic reductionism.
Here is the transcript and the youtube link to Michio Kaku's explanation.

Transcipt - Some people think that intelligence is the crowning achievement of evolution. Well if that's true there should be more intelligent creatures on the planet Earth. But to the best of our knowledge we're the only ones. The dinosaurs were on the Earth for roughly 200 million years and to the best of our knowledge not a single dinosaur became intelligent. We humans, modern humans, had been on the Earth for roughly a hundred thousand years. Only a tiny fraction of the 4.5 billion years that the Earth has been around. So you come to the rather astounding conclusion that intelligence is not really necessary. That Mother Nature has done perfectly well with non-intelligent creatures for millions of years and that we as intelligent creatures are the new kid on the block.

And so then you begin to wonder how did we become intelligent? What separated us from the animals? Well there are basically three ingredients -- at least three that help to propel us to become intelligent. One is the opposable thumb. You need a tentacle, a claw, an opposable thumb in order to manipulate the environment. So that's one of the ingredients of intelligence -- to be able to change the world around you.

Second is eyesight. But the eyesight of a predator. We have eyes to the front of our face, not to the side of our face and why? Animals with eyes to the front of their face are predators -- lions, tigers and foxes. Animals with eyes to the side of their face are prey and they are not as intelligent -- like a rabbit. We say dumb bunny and smart as a fox. And there's a reason for that. Because the fox is a predator. It has to learn how to ambush. It has to learn how to have stealth, camouflage. It has to psych out the enemy and anticipate the motion of the enemy that is its prey. If you're a dumb bunny all you have to do is run. And the third basic ingredient is language because you have to be able to communicate your knowledge to the next generation.

And to the best of our knowledge animals do not communicate knowledge to their offspring other than by simply communicating certain primitive motions. There's no book. There's no language. There's no culture by which animals can communicate their knowledge to the next generation. And so we think that's how the brain evolved. We have an opposable thumb, we have a language of maybe five to ten thousand words. And we have eyesight that is stereo eyesight -- the eyesight of a predator. And predators seem to be smarter than prey. Then you ask another question. How many animals on the Earth satisfy these three basic ingredients. And then you come to the astounding conclusion -- the answer is almost none. So perhaps there's a reason why we became intelligent and the other animals did not. They did not have the basic ingredients that would one day propel us to become intelligent.

Then the next question asked in Planet of the Apes and asked in any number of science fiction movies is can you accentuate intelligence. Can you take an ape and make the ape intelligent. Well, believe it or not the answer could be yes. We are 98.5 percent genetically equivalent to a chimpanzee. Only a handful of genes separate us from the chimps and yet we live twice as long and we have thousands of words in our vocabulary. Chimps can have maybe just a few hundred. And we've isolated many of those genes that separate us from the chimpanzees. For example the ASP gene governs the size of the crane, cranial capacity so that by monkeying with just one gene you can literally double the size of the brain case and the brain itself.

And so in the future -- not today but in the future we may use gene therapy to begin the process of making perhaps a chimpanzee intelligent. We know the genes that'll increase the size of the brain. We've isolated now the genes that give you manual dexterity by which you can make tools. We have found the genes which give you the ability to articulate thousands of words. And so it may be possible to tinker with the genome of a chimpanzee so that they have a larger brain case, they have better manual dexterity and they have the ability to articulate a larger vocabulary. But then what do you get? You get a primate that looks very similar to a human. And so my personal attitude is why bother. We already have humans, just look outside the door.

So why bother to manipulate a chimpanzee because as you make a chimpanzee more and more intelligent it becomes more and more humanlike with a vocabulary, with vocal chords, with manual dexterity, with a larger brain case and a spine to support a larger brain case. That's called a human.



 

[1137]

One of the best explanations on evolution and the mind body problem comes from a physicist in which he uses models to show how awareness can be explained with materialistic reductionism.
Here is the transcript and the youtube link to Michio Kaku's explanation.



I didn't see anything about reductionism...

 

[idav]

I didn't see anything about reductionism...

Oops, silly me copied the wrong video.

Here it is

Transcript: In the entire universe the two greatest scientific mysteries are first of all the origin of the universe itself. And second of all the origin of intelligence. Believe it or not, sitting on our shoulders is the most complex object that Mother Nature has created in the known universe. You have to go at least 24 trillion miles to the nearest star to find a planet that may have life and may have intelligence. And yet our brain only consumes about 20-30 watts of power and yet it performs calculations better than any large supercomputer. So it's a mystery. How is the brain wired up? And if we can figure that out what can we do with it to enhance our mental capabilities.

When you look at the brain and all the parts of the brain they don't seem to make any sense at all. The visual part of the brain is way in the back, for example. Why is the brain constructed the way it is? Is this nothing but an accident of evolution? Well one way to look at it is through evolution. That is, the back of the brain is a so-called reptilian brain. The most ancient primitive part of the brain that governs balance, territoriality, mating. And so the very back of the brain is also the kind of brain that you find in reptiles. Now when I was a child I would go to the science museum and look at the snakes sometimes and they would stare back at me. And I would wonder, "What are they thinking about?" Well, I think now I know. What they're thinking about was, "Is this person lunch?"

Then we have the center part of the brain going forward and that's a so-called monkey brain, the mammalian brain. The brain of emotions. The brain of social hierarchies. And then finally the front of the brain is the human brain, especially the prefrontal cortex. This is where rational thinking is. And when you ask yourself a question where am I anyway. The answer is right behind your forehead. That's where you really are.

Well, I have a theory of consciousness which tries to wrap it all up together. There've been about 20,000 or so papers written about consciousness and no consensus. Never in the history of science have so many people devoted so much time to produce so little. Well, I'm a physicist and when we physicists look at a mysterious object the first thing we try to do is to create a model. A model of this object in space. And then we hit the play button and run it forward in time. This is how Newton was able to come up with the theory of gravity. This is how Einstein came up with relativity. So I tried to use this in terms of the human brain and evolution. So what I'm saying is I have a new theory of consciousness based on evolution. And that is consciousness is the number of feedback loops required to create a model of your position in space with relationship to other organisms and finally in relationship to time.

So think of the consciousness of a thermostat. I believe that even a lowly thermostat has one unit of consciousness. That is, it senses the temperature around it. And then we have a flower. A flower has maybe, maybe ten units of consciousness. It has to understand the temperature, the weather, humidity, where gravity is pointing. And then finally we go to the reptilian brain which I call level 1 consciousness and reptiles basically have a very good understanding of their position in space, especially because they have to lunge out and grab prey. Then we have level 2 consciousness, the monkey consciousness. The consciousness of emotions, social hierarchies, where are we in relationship to the tribe. And then where are we as humans.

As humans we are at level 3. We run simulations into the future. Animals apparently don't do this. They don't plan to hibernate. They don't plan the next day's agenda. They have no conception of tomorrow to the best of our ability. But that's what our brain does. Our brain is a prediction machine. And so when we look at the evolution from the reptilian brain to the mammalian brain to the prefrontal cortex, we realize that is the process of understanding our position in space with respect to others -- that is emotions -- and finally running simulations into the future.

 

[Nous]

Once again, as I have said, I find myself unable to explain 'physical' any better than I have done so far.

So evidently you don't dispute what I said: "Obviously you can't define the adjective in a non-vacuous way, and obviously you can't articulate any argument by which to conclude that the thesis of physicalism is true." That's why I ask why anyone needs that vacuous religion. Your vacuous religion has Virgin Mary written all over it.

 

[Nous]

In Physicalism, free will arises as a consequence of those laws.

Why say something so stupid? Name the law determined that I would spell "physicalism" backwards and in purple font rather than spelling it correctly and in the regular black font. Then name the law that determined that I knew well beforehand what I would post and in what font color I would post.

 

[Koldo]

So evidently you don't dispute what I said: "Obviously you can't define the adjective in a non-vacuous way, and obviously you can't articulate any argument by which to conclude that the thesis of physicalism is true." That's why I ask why anyone needs that vacuous religion. Your vacuous religion has Virgin Mary written all over it.

If that's how you see it, I suppose I should've made it more clear that by saying that you don't understand my explanations about 'physical', I am saying there is a non-vacuous understanding of the term you are unable to grasp.

 

[Koldo]

Why say something so stupid? Name the law determined that I would spell "physicalism" backwards and in purple font rather than spelling it correctly and in the regular black font. Then name the law that determined that I knew well beforehand what I would post and in what font color I would post.

All laws together.
Perhaps the following image will be of aid:

This is Supervenience.

 

[Yerda]

Single sentences are not arguments (unless one has listed one's premises and conclusion in the single sentence, which you didn't.

Sorry, I didn't realise you were looking for something quite so formal. It would be difficult to satisfy the demand you are making if you dispute the possibility of a definition for the word we are talking about.

So, just for conversations sake:

If we are to accept that there are physical events, processes, laws, etc we have to accept that the word physical means something. If it doesn't physicalism is gibberish. And so is physics. Physics doesn't seem to be gibberish. Therefore the word physical would seem to mean something.

Here I would say that we can simply leave the word physical out of descriptions of events etc as I'm sure you agree. A problem only arises when someone wishes to assert the existence of something that is substantially different from the stuff we can observe. It is stuff, but that stuff is not like the stuff we know. The stuff we know is physical (e.g. bodies) and this other stuff is non-physical (e.g. spirit) The "physicalist" is then the person who says, no, there is not some stuff other than the usual stuff.

So, physical means something and the debate over substances springs from the need to assert something other than physical stuff. Since no-one has demostrated this to be the case we are left with the best inference, i.e. there is only physical stuff.

How is that for a start?

I look forward to reading your insights.

It makes more sense to not adopt any metaphysical thesis as one's religion than to adopt a false or incoherent one. On the other hand, if one needs a metaphysical thesis as a religion, there's always pluralism, which is certainly consistent with physics and every other science. No science presumes to have discovered the "intrinsic nature" of or the adjective that applies to everything that can be said to exist, much less all the unknown stuff that might exist.

One can also note that what physicists discover about empirical reality are mathematical relations--relations between quantities (E=mc2; F=ma; the laws of conservation, which are proven by theorem). Thus one would seem to be justified in assuming that empirical reality is of a mathematical nature.

Pluralism, to be consistent with physics as you say it would surely have to include the physical, which you are claiming is incoherent. How can adding the unobservable to the incoherent be an improvement?

Also, it might be illuminating if you define mathematical and empirical reality.

Good for you. I knew you are reasonable.

Let's not get carried away.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

All laws together.
Perhaps the following image will be of aid:

This is Supervenience.

1) The elementary particles aren't particles (the standard interpretation of the standard model of particle physics is that certain elementary particles are the carriers of fundamental forces and the others are described dynamically in quantum field theory as exchanges in these fields)
2) Molecular properties can't be explained by atomic theory or particle physics or any physics beyond those in molecular sciences:
"The most fundamental question that one might be expected to answer is ‘‘why are there solids?’’ That is, if we were given a large number of atoms of copper, why should they form themselves into the regular array that we know as a crystal of metallic copper? Why should they not form an irregular structure like glass, or a superfluid liquid like helium? We are ill-equipped to answer these questions...such a task is impossible
Taylor, P. L., & Heinonen, O. (2002). A Quantum Approach to Condensed Matter Physics. Cambridge University Press.
3) There are no "elementary" particles. That is to say, we are free to choose whether we e.g., consider all known physics to be built upon the dynamics of fermions (taking them to be the most elementary category of particles), or to take bosons as fundamental and regard the fermions as topological "kinks" in bosonic fields. And, of course, the prevailing view is that of "effective field" theories in QFT (and particle physics), such that the required renormalization which introduces a mathematical trick to make fundamental theories which predict elementary particles to have infinite masses and energies, forcing them to be finite, are mere approximations to more fundamental theories.
4) Emergence introduced in the 70s by Anderson addressed just this question and even then concluded that one cannot derive "higher-level" scientific descriptions in e.g., the theoretical frameworks in condensed matter physics, quantum optics, chemistry, biology, etc., to some fundamental theory in physics, even in theory/principle.
5) Many of the most important "laws" of physics (e.g., that of energy conservation, entropy, and even the existence of "time" or "heat") are derived from irreducibly statistical theories and/or statistical physics. Even in classical physics, we find that phenomenological processes and properties of/from physical systems and their interactions are not reducible either to their "parts" or the "laws" governing the interactions of these parts.
6) There exists nothing remotely resembling a theory of atomic physics (let alone elementary particle physics) of any living system, from intracellular dynamics to organisms. Nor is there any hint that there will be any other than via assumption.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Physics doesn't seem to be gibberish.

Then you haven't spent enough time on fundamental/elementary particle physics (HEP). According to fundamental/elementary particle physics, we can use classical physics to ascertain the "particles" that make up nuclei and that some of these come in several (6) different flavors and each flavor is available in red, green, and blue (the flavors include strange, charm, bottom, etc.). These flavor/color particles can have additional properties too, however, e.g., one can find a particle to possess naked charm. Oh, and of course we can't ever identify any individual quarks, because of color confinement. What's that, you say? Color confinement is the theory that we can't observe any individual quark, because we haven't and can't seem to.
How did the hundreds of "elementary" particles become reduced to a few dozen? Well, we used some of the same assumptions when we posited their existence and confirmed their discovery: the conservation laws and symmetries were taken to be definitional such that various particles could be taken to exist because experiments violated fundamental conservation laws. As these are fundamentally related to symmetries, we used group theory and other symmetry representations to organize the hundreds of "particles" that were required given that special relativity be compatible with quantum mechanics in a quantized theory of electromagnetism (all assumptions) into various groups/families. This wasn't enough, as none of these particles could be described theoretically without ignoring the fact that theories posited them to possess infinite quantities (in particular, mass and/or energy).
Having done all that, we find that most of the universe can't be described via this standard model, and introduce concepts like dark energy and dark matter so that our failures look like realms for new discovery, whilst fundamental particles like the graviton have no empirical support and our most fundamental model ignores what is supposed to be a fundamental force (gravity).

The "physicalist" is then the person who says, no, there is not some stuff other than the usual stuff.

Like "Charmonium", W, Z, up, down, top, etc.?

 

[Yerda]

Then you haven't spent enough time on fundamental/elementary particle physics (HEP). According to fundamental/elementary particle physics, we can use classical physics to ascertain the "particles" that make up nuclei and that some of these come in several (6) different flavors and each flavor is available in red, green, and blue (the flavors include strange, charm, bottom, etc.). These flavor/color particles can have additional properties too, however, e.g., one can find a particle to possess naked charm. Oh, and of course we can't ever identify any individual quarks, because of color confinement. What's that, you say? Color confinement is the theory that we can't observe any individual quark, because we haven't and can't seem to.
How did the hundreds of "elementary" particles become reduced to a few dozen? Well, we used some of the same assumptions when we posited their existence and confirmed their discovery: the conservation laws and symmetries were taken to be definitional such that various particles could be taken to exist because experiments violated fundamental conservation laws. As these are fundamentally related to symmetries, we used group theory and other symmetry representations to organize the hundreds of "particles" that were required given that special relativity be compatible with quantum mechanics in a quantized theory of electromagnetism (all assumptions) into various groups/families. This wasn't enough, as none of these particles could be described theoretically without ignoring the fact that theories posited them to possess infinite quantities (in particular, mass and/or energy).
Having done all that, we find that most of the universe can't be described via this standard model, and introduce concepts like dark energy and dark matter so that our failures look like realms for new discovery, whilst fundamental particles like the graviton have no empirical support and our most fundamental model ignores what is supposed to be a fundamental force (gravity).

It's true I haven't studied particle physics. In either case I don't believe that the limitations of a particular physical theory point us to the conclusion that physics is gibberish.

Like "Charmonium", W, Z, up, down, top, etc.?

I'd say so, yes.

 

[Koldo]

1) The elementary particles aren't particles (the standard interpretation of the standard model of particle physics is that certain elementary particles are the carriers of fundamental forces and the others are described dynamically in quantum field theory as exchanges in these fields)
2) Molecular properties can't be explained by atomic theory or particle physics or any physics beyond those in molecular sciences:
"The most fundamental question that one might be expected to answer is ‘‘why are there solids?’’ That is, if we were given a large number of atoms of copper, why should they form themselves into the regular array that we know as a crystal of metallic copper? Why should they not form an irregular structure like glass, or a superfluid liquid like helium? We are ill-equipped to answer these questions...such a task is impossible
Taylor, P. L., & Heinonen, O. (2002). A Quantum Approach to Condensed Matter Physics. Cambridge University Press.
3) There are no "elementary" particles. That is to say, we are free to choose whether we e.g., consider all known physics to be built upon the dynamics of fermions (taking them to be the most elementary category of particles), or to take bosons as fundamental and regard the fermions as topological "kinks" in bosonic fields. And, of course, the prevailing view is that of "effective field" theories in QFT (and particle physics), such that the required renormalization which introduces a mathematical trick to make fundamental theories which predict elementary particles to have infinite masses and energies, forcing them to be finite, are mere approximations to more fundamental theories.
4) Emergence introduced in the 70s by Anderson addressed just this question and even then concluded that one cannot derive "higher-level" scientific descriptions in e.g., the theoretical frameworks in condensed matter physics, quantum optics, chemistry, biology, etc., to some fundamental theory in physics, even in theory/principle.
5) Many of the most important "laws" of physics (e.g., that of energy conservation, entropy, and even the existence of "time" or "heat") are derived from irreducibly statistical theories and/or statistical physics. Even in classical physics, we find that phenomenological processes and properties of/from physical systems and their interactions are not reducible either to their "parts" or the "laws" governing the interactions of these parts.
6) There exists nothing remotely resembling a theory of atomic physics (let alone elementary particle physics) of any living system, from intracellular dynamics to organisms. Nor is there any hint that there will be any other than via assumption.

Some of your point aren't relevant, while the others only deal with reductionism.

 

[Nous]

I am saying there is a non-vacuous understanding of the term ["physical"]

Prove it. Provide a non-vacuous definition.

And if you become able to use logic at some point, then state an argument by which to conclude that the thesis of physicalism is true. That was the challenge of the OP. After more than 400 posts, you still haven't met the challenge of the OP.

 

[Nous]

All laws together.
Perhaps the following image will be of aid:

This is Supervenience.

So you can't identify even a single law that accounts for the ability of an individual to choose among the available options what acts he will or won't perform?

 

[Nous]

Sorry, I didn't realise you were looking for something quite so formal. It would be difficult to satisfy the demand you are making if you dispute the possibility of a definition for the word we are talking about.

I obviously haven't "disputed the possibility of a definition" of any word. Define what you mean by the adjective "physical".

If we are to accept that there are physical events, processes, laws, etc we have to accept that the word physical means something.

Yes, "physical" needs to mean something if you're going to assert something about it.

If it doesn't physicalism is gibberish. And so is physics. Physics doesn't seem to be gibberish.

Physics doesn't traffic in the adjective "physical". No scientific discipline depends upon or defines that adjective.

The Wikipedia article that Koldo linked to earlier defined "physical object" as just matter. Do you have any reason to define "physical" to denote anything other than matter?

Here I would say that we can simply leave the word physical out of descriptions of events etc as I'm sure you agree. A problem only arises when someone wishes to assert the existence of something that is substantially different from the stuff we can observe.

So you're saying that "physical" refers to something that humans can observe?

It is stuff, but that stuff is not like the stuff we know. The stuff we know is physical (e.g. bodies) and this other stuff is non-physical (e.g. spirit) The "physicalist" is then the person who says, no, there is not some stuff other than the usual stuff.

So, physical means something and the debate over substances springs from the need to assert something other than physical stuff. Since no-one has demostrated this to be the case we are left with the best inference, i.e. there is only physical stuff.

How is that for a start?

Did you make a deduction somewhere? Is there an argument there that concludes that the thesis of physicalism is in fact true, i.e., that everything that exists is physical (observable)?

Pluralism, to be consistent with physics as you say it would surely have to include the physical, which you are claiming is incoherent.

I certainly never said that the adjective "physical" is inherently incoherent. In fact, in one of my earliest posts here I noted that it is apparently an ancient quotidian idea about something that is observable to humans.

Also, it might be illuminating if you define mathematical and empirical reality.

That might be illuminating, but I haven't used the term "mathematical reality". I sometimes use the term "empirical reality," but my definition of that term will undoubtedly help no one make an argument concluding that the thesis of physicalism or materialism is true, which is the challenge of this thread.

 

[Yerda]

Define what you mean by the adjective "physical".

From dictionary.com - pertaining to the physical sciences, especially physics.

Do you have any reason to define "physical" to denote anything other than matter?

Yes. Energy, time, information, charge, length and mass are all physical quantities.

So you're saying that "physical" refers to something that humans can observe?

All I've said so far is that physical is a meaningful term as implied by the existence of meaningful physical theories. It seemed to me you had a problem with this previously. If that's not the case we can move on.

Did you make a deduction somewhere? Is there an argument there that concludes that the thesis of physicalism is in fact true, i.e., that everything that exists is physical (observable)?

I kind of get the feeling that you want others to do the leg work while you fire rocks at us.

I certainly never said that the adjective "physical" is inherently incoherent. In fact, in one of my earliest posts here I noted that it is apparently an ancient quotidian idea about something that is observable to humans.

Fair enough. Do you think this a good way of thinking about the question?

That might be illuminating, but I haven't used the term "mathematical reality". I sometimes use the term "empirical reality," but my definition of that term will undoubtedly help no one make an argument concluding that the thesis of physicalism or materialism is true, which is the challenge of this thread.

Ok. Feel free to leave it.

 

[Nous]

From dictionary.com - pertaining to the physical sciences, especially physics.

So, accordingly, the thesis that everything that exists is physical would mean that everything that exists "pertains to the physical sciences, especially physics". Is that right? Is that what you believe--that everything that exists "pertains to the physical sciences, especially physics"?

Does volition or free will--the ability of an individual to choose among available options--pertain to the physical sciences,especially physics? If so, in what way? Can you provide any evidence by which to draw such a conclusion?

I kind of get the feeling that you want others to do the leg work while you fire rocks at us.

Yes, I will not be making an argument that either materialism or physicalism is true. I've done enough reading on the topic to know that no philosopher has made such an argument. We already know that the classical definition of materialism is false, and physicalism is invariably gored on one of the two horns of Hempel's dilemma.

So, you should definitely expect nothing but rocks from me. I assure you I am well armed.